OSEI v. OKUTU AND ANOTHER

The plaintiff is claiming damages from the defendants for personal injuries and consequential loss as a result of the negligent driving of the first defendant, the servant of the second defendant.

[p.325]

The plaintiff has brought an application under Order 14, r. 1 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), for judgment on the ground that there is no defence to the action. The plaintiff in his supporting affidavit has deposed to the fact that the accident happened on 9 December 1975 as a result of the negligent driving of the first defendant. The affidavit further states that the first defendant was put before the District Court, Keta, on charges of careless driving and negligently causing harm and he pleaded guilty to the said charges. He was accordingly convicted and sentenced to a fine of ¢25 or three months’ imprisonment with hard labour. The plaintiff further in his affidavit states that the plea of guilty was in reference to the accident of 9 December 1975, that resulted in injuries to the plaintiff. Again the plaintiff in his supporting affidavit, paragraph (1), refers to particulars in the statement of claim which state the circumstances leading to the accident that caused injuries to the plaintiff who was himself in the vehicle No. GF 5308. Indeed he saw exactly what happened. It is stated in paragraph (3) of the statement of claim as follows: "On reaching Norvie on the said Denu to Keta road the vehicle went off the road, climbed a heap of broken cement blocks and finally somersaulted."

It cannot be gainsaid that the reference to a plea of guilty by the plaintiff in his affidavit is meant to show that the first defendant admitted his act of negligence which has given rise to the instant proceedings. The defendants have not put in any affidavit and if they had done so they might have destroyed the effect of the plaintiff's affidavit by making reference to some point of defence on the issue of liability. But this they have never attempted to do. They chose to remain passive. However, after the arguments have concluded and the matter was adjourned for consideration and decision, the defendants, by their solicitor, filed what purported to be a defence which was nothing but a traverse in general terms. This defence in itself offends the rules of pleadings, and particularly Order 19, r. 4 of L.N. 140A, which requires pleadings to state material facts on which a party relies either for his claim or defence. By their statement of